uality, in my opinion, would presuppose that the question of social acceptance of the homosexual, has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether or not the homosexual is psychologically disturbed. It is absurd and utterly irrational to mix these two problems, and yet we find those on both sides of the fence, the apologist and the enemy, who mix them. In no other area except that of sex-and, specifically, homosexuality— in no other area of physiological, anatomical, psychological or emotional difficulties, it is necessary for those seeking social acceptance to have to deny at the same time that there is any pathological or other disturbing factor. Nor, on the other hand, can I think of any other area in which there is a pathological or other disturbing factor in which people say that because of this factor there should not be social acceptance. These are two entirely separate things. And yet, a great many homosexuals, and particularly those who are engaged in this movement, seem to find it necessary to expend a great deal of their energy in proving the utter normalcy, or the complete freedom from disturbance, of the homosexual. I say that if you believe it, fine! I don't. But it is, in any case, completely irrelevant for it has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of freedom, or of the worth and dignity of the individual.

Next, I would like to say that a rational approach on the part of the homosexual himself, toward his own life and toward his own mode of behavior, must presuppose a reexamination of the aims and values which he sets for himself, particularly and specifically to determine whether he has copied, completely mechanically, certain modes of behavior and concepts from heterosexual life, which are, at best, not very functional even for the heterosexual, and which are,

certainly, quite non-functional for the homosexual. The homosexual who is trying desperately to model his life after the heterosexual family has only given himself a great deal of frustration and heartache. I refer particularly to the frustrating expenditure of energy--much more apparent in the male than in the female-of trying to emulate a monogamous, romantic concept of sexuality which has come down to us from the days when such a concept was necessary in order to determine who the father was, in order to determine inheritance, and in order to be synchronized with certain ideas on religion and property and so forth. This is a concept which is not only of very doubtful validity for the homosexual, but which is possibly very self-defeating. I see in this life so many instances of absurd and irrational jealousies, of tremendous expenditures of energy, in an effort to build a relationship, which would be completely unnecessary if the individuals involved would ask themselves what monogamy or fidelity in the usual sense of the words I do not accept these as definitions of the ideal loyalty actually represent, or what they have to offer to a relationship. It may be possible. and even essential, for two people of the same sex to find that the greatest love expression, the greatest intertwining of their lives, the greatest intellectual companionship which they can give each other are concomitant with many, many other sexual relationships on the part of each of them with other people. Or it may not be so. It may be concomitant with no sex relations at all between the two people who are so dearly in love with each other. And this, too, may not be so. Any of these, or any number of other situations, might be necessary. desirable, and logical in a family unit built on its own individual basis and not modeled mechanically and futilely

9